Climatesense-norpag

Thursday, February 26, 2015

There is a new Science Magazine paper by Steinmann Mann and Miller:
Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatureshttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988
This paper recognizes that there are serious differences between the NH, N Pacific and N Atlantic SST model runs and the observed temperatures. The authors are particularly concerned to explain the recent "Pause". They subdivide the ocean system into three separate regional components which they label AMO,NMO and PMO ( somewhat redefined AMO NAO and PDO )
Basically what the paper does is to calculate the differences between models and observations and then attribute the difference to an unexplained "internal variability" in the ocean temperatures. The authors conclude that internal multidecadal variability in NH SST temperatures accounts for the discrepancy between models and observation and also that it likely offset anthropogenic warming over the last decade . They add that this effect will reverse ( at some unspecified date) and add to anthropogenic warming in coming decades.
The AMO PMO and NMO curves in their figure 3c show, more or less, the well known 60 year periodicity in the temperature data. see Figs 15 and 16 athttp://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
In other words they are trying to improve the models and save the model forecasts by adding to them
the effects of the PDO ,AMO and NAO.
Unfortunately they continue to make the egregious schoolboy error of tuning their models back about 160 years when the main periodicity is millennial. (Figs5-9 at the link) The recent pause is more accurately described as a cooling since 2003 which date represents a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year periodicities. I estimate that the cooling trend of the millennial cycle will reverse in about 2650 as opposed to in the coming decades. See the peak athttp://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
That the Steinman et al paper got through peer review for Science Magazine says much about the current state of establishment science. However in a short comment on the paper in the same Science issue Ben Booth of the Hadley center does sound a refreshingly cautionary ( for Science Mag and Hadley ) note saying that the paper is only useful if the current models accurately represent both the external drivers of past climate and the climate responses to them and that there is reason to be cautious in both of these areas. This comment is an encouraging sign that empirical reality may be finally making an impression on the establishment consciousness. If the expected sharp cooling in 2017-2018 suggested by the drop in the Ap index and Neutron Monitor data in Figs 13 and 14 of the post linked above actually occurs it should just about finish off the whole CAGW meme.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

The post and cooling forecast athttp://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
has this to say about the sun and climate.
"NOTE!! The connection between solar "activity" and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar "activity" encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.
Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
a) the changing GCR flux - via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)
b) the changing EUV radiation - top down effects via the Ozone layer
c) the changing TSI - especially on millennial and centennial scales.
The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity."
I am gratified to note that the McLean paper provides strong support for a) above. Closer investigation into the exact processes involved in the solar magnetic field strength -GCR -cloud connection should prove fruitful.
It highly significant that the sharp decline in the 0-30 N and 0-30 S cloud cover (Fig 10) ends at about the same time as global warming stops.
It is also of interest to note the almost coincident drop to what looks like a new baseline in the Magnetic Plage Strength Index.see p34 in Leif Svalgaard's http://www.leif.org/research/
1610 Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.ppt (TIEMS Conference, Oslo, Norway, 2012) pdf pdf with notes
The McLean paper is athttp://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837#.VE9LlFfivOU

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

1.1The Inherent Inutility of the Modeling Approach when Dealing with Complex Systems
The CAGW meme and by extension the climate and energy policies of most Western Governments are built on the outputs of climate models. In spite of the inability of weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, the climate modelers have deluded themselves, their employers, the grant giving agencies, the politicians and the general public into believing that they could build climate models capable of accurately forecasting global temperatures for decades and centuries to come. Commenting on this naive reductionist approach, Harrison and Stainforth say in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO13/pdf

Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems ... where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large, complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies ... the GCM is the numerical solution of a complex but purely deterministic set of nonlinear partial differential equations over a defined spatiotemporal grid, and no attempt is made to introduce any quantification of uncertainty into its construction ... [T]he reductionist argument that large scale behaviour can be represented by the aggregative effects of smaller scale process has never been validated in the context of natural environmental systems ... An
explosion of uncertainty arises when a climate change impact assessment aims to
inform national and local adaptation
decisions, because uncertainties accumulate from the various levels of the
assessment. Climate impact assessments undertaken for the purposes of
adaptation decisions(sometimes called end-to-end analyses)propagate these
uncertainties and generate large uncertainty ranges in climate impacts. These
studies also find that the impacts are highly conditional on assumptions made
in the assessment, for example, with respect to weightings of global climate
models(GCMs)—according to some criteria, such as performance against past
observations—or to the combination of GCMs used .Future prospects for reducing
these large uncertainties remain limited for several reasons. Computational
restrictions have thus far restricted the uncertainty space explored in model
simulations, so uncertainty in climate predictions may well increase even as computational
power increases. ... The search for
objective constraints with which to reduce the uncertainty in regional
predictions has proven elusive. The problem of equifinality (sometimes also called the problem of “model
identifiability”) - that different model structures and different parameter sets
of a model can produce similar observed behavior of the system under study - has
rarely been addressed.

1.2 The impossibility of computing valid outcomes for GCMs
The modelling approach is also inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4

Models are often tuned by running them backwards against several decades of observation, this is
much too short a period to correlate outputs with observation when the controlling natural quasi-periodicities of most interest are in the centennial and especially in the key millennial range. Tuning to these longer periodicities is beyond any computing capacity when using reductionist models with a large number of variables unless these long wave natural periodicities are somehow built into the model structure ab initio.

1.3 The Structural inadequacies of the IPCC models1.3.1
In addition to the general problems of modeling complex systems as in 1.1 and 1.2 above, the particular IPCC models have glaringly obvious structural deficiencies as seen in Fig1 (fig 2-20 from AR4 WG1- this is not very different from Fig 8-17 in the AR5 WG1 report)

Fig 1

The only natural forcing in both of the IPCC Figures is TSI, and everything else is classed as anthropogenic. The deficiency of this model structure is immediately obvious. Under natural forcings should come such things as, for example, Milankovitch Orbital Cycles, lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents, earth's geomagnetic field strength and most importantly on millennial and centennial time scales all the Solar Activity data time series - e.g., Solar Magnetic Field strength, TSI, SSNs, GCRs, (effect on aerosols, clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events.

1.3.2
The IPCC climate models are further incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First, that CO2 is the main climate driver. Second, that in calculating climate sensitivity, the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a positive feed back effect. Third, that the GHE of water vapour is always positive. As to the last point, the feedbacks cannot be always positive otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. For example, an important negative feed back related to Tropical Cyclones has recently been investigated by Trenberth, see: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw31_proceedings/S6_05_Kevin_Trenberth_NCAR.ppt
He says in Fig 2.

Fig 2

Temperature drives CO2 and water vapour concentrations and evaporative and convective cooling independently. The whole CAGW - GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause. Unless the range and causes of natural variation, as seen in the natural temperature quasi-periodicities, are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. In fact, the IPCC recognizes this point.

The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy and the basis for the WG2 and 3 sections of AR5 is the climate sensitivity to CO2. By AR5 - WG1 the IPCC itself is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)

"The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations "In plain English, this means that the IPCC contributors have no idea what the climate sensitivity is. Therefore, there is no credible basis for the WG 2 and 3 reports, and the Government policy makers have no empirical scientific basis for the entire UNFCCC process and their economically destructive climate and energy policies.The whole idea of a climate sensitivity to CO2 (i.e., that we could dial up a chosen temperature by setting CO2 levels at some calculated level) is simply bizarre because the response of the temperature to Anthropogenic CO2 is simply not a constant, and will vary depending, as it does, on the state of the system as a whole at the time of the CO2 introduction.

1.3.3
Because of the built in assumption in all the models that CO2 is the main driver, the actual temperature projections are relatively insensitive as to the particular IPCC climate model used, and, in fact, the range of outcomes depend almost entirely simply on the RCPs chosen. The RCPs depend on little more than fanciful speculations by economists. The principal component in the RCPs is whatever population forecast/speculation will best support the climate and energy policies of the IPCCs client Western governments.

1.3.4
In practice the modelers have known for some time that their models have no skill in forecasting, and they have indeed said so in the WG1 reports. The IPCC AR4 WG1 science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections. It concludes:

"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"

What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability (i.e., we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2). This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the "plausible" models to be tested any way.

Things have not improved by the time of the AR5 WG1 report which says in FAQ 9.1

"Although future climate projections cannot be directly evaluated, climate models are based, to a large extent, on verifiable physical principles and are able to reproduce many important aspects of past response to external forcing."

The successive uncertainty estimates in the successive "Summary for Policymakers" take no account of the structural uncertainties in the models and almost the entire the range of model outputs may well lay outside the range of the real world future climate variability. By the time of the AR5 report this is obviously the case. Here is just such an example from Spencer.

Fig 3

In summary the temperature projections of the IPCC - Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.
The modeling community is itself beginning to acknowledge its failures and even Science Magazine
which has generally been a propagandist for the CAGW meme is now allowing reality to creep in. An article in its 6/13/2014 issue says:

"Much of the problem boils down to grid resolution. “The truth is that the level of detail in the models isn't really determined by scientific constraints,” says Tim Palmer, a physicist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom who advocates stochastic approaches to climate modeling. “It is determined entirely by the size of the computers.” Roughly speaking, an order-of-magnitude increase in computer power is needed to halve the grid size. Typical horizontal grid size has fallen from 500 km in the 1970s to 100 km today and could fall to 10 km in 10 years' time. But even that won't be much help in modeling vitally important small-scale phenomena such as cloud formation, Palmer points out. And before they achieve that kind of detail, computers may run up against a physical barrier: power consumption. “Machines that run exaflops [1018 floating point operations per second] are on the horizon,” Palmer says. “The problem is, you'll need 100 MW to run one.” That's enough electricity to power a town of 100,000 people.

Faced with such obstacles, Palmer and others advocate a fresh start."

2. The Past is the Key to the Present and Future . Finding then Forecasting the Natural Quasi-Periodicities Governing Earths Climate - the Geological Approach. 2.1 General Principles.
The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a mindset and set of skills very different from the reductionist approach to nature, but one which is appropriate and necessary for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. Scientists and modelers with backgrounds in physics and maths usually have little experience in correlating multiple, often fragmentary, data sets of multiple variables to build an understanding and narrative of general trends and patterns from the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. The value of the geologists' approach to understanding the past is proven by the trillions of dollars spent by the oil companies to find and produce the millions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of gas needed daily to fuel the world economy. It works!Earth's climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated byb) Solar "activity" cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth's climate and weather.After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities to help forecast decadal and annual changes, we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods.

In addition to these quasi-periodic processes we must also be aware of endogenous earth changes in geomagnetic field strength, volcanic activity and at really long time scales the plate tectonic movements and disposition of the land masses.

2.2 The Present Warming in Relation to the Milankovitch Cycles.Fig. 4 (From Wiki-Milankovich)

Past and future Milankovitch cycles.— ε is obliquity (axial tilt).— e is eccentricity.— ϖ is longitude of perihelion.— e sin(ϖ) is the precession index, which together with obliquity, controls the seasonal cycle of insolation.
— is the calculated daily-averaged insolation at the top of the atmosphere, on the day of the summer solstice at 65 N latitude.— Benthic forams and — Vostok ice core show two distinct proxies for past global sealevel and temperature, from ocean sediment and Antarctic ice respectively.
The vertical gray line shows current conditions, at 2 ky A.

For a concise article on the Milankovitch cycles you can google "Wiki Milankovitch". The information in Fig 4 is essential for forecasting climate over future periods of several thousand years and longer. The green eccentricity curves in Fig 4 show that Marine Isotope Stage 11 (424-374,000 years ago) and MIS 19 ( 788-775,000 ) were the Milankovitch cycles most closely analogous to the present day. The 400,000 +/- year periodicities seen by inspecting the same curve are very stable and have been recognized in the Geological Record as far back as 400 million years. It would appear from a glance at Fig.4 that such forecasting would be straightforward, but this is not so. In climate forecasting other things in the system as a whole are never equal with the result that, as reported in the Wiki article, opinions differ, e.g.:

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.[23]More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.

As a further example Rohling et al 2010 say:

"Recent comparisons pf CO2 and CH4 trends throughMIS-19 with those of the Holocene, in the absence of sea level constraints, have been used to suggest that the Holocene should have terminated already. Kutzbach et al 2009.

"Here we propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing7. Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5ppmv."The relative Antarctic temperatures at the Vostock site over the last four glacials and interglacials preceding our Holocene warming peak are shown in dark green in Fig 4.It is of interest to note that Northern Canadian temperatures during the Eemian interglacial (130,000-115,000 years ago) are estimated to be 5 degrees C higher than today, and global sea levels were about 5 meters higher than at present. During the Marine Isotope Stage 11, interglacial Greenland temperatures were about 8 degrees C warmer than today and global sea levels have been variously estimated from 8-20 meters above present day. A final point of interest is the rapid temperature rise which terminates all the glacial periods. The reasons for this rapid warming remain the subject of active investigation, as is the relative length of the interglacial periods. The repeated episodes of rapid warming during the Pleistocene indicate that climate response to the natural drivers is non-linear and some combination of resonances between drivers results in passing a threshold beyond which a period of positive feedback produces rapid change.Of interest in this regard is the current declining trend in the earths obliquity.

Wiki says:
"Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend in forcing, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder (i.e. milder seasons), as well as cause an overall cooling trend.2.3 The Quasi - Millennial Solar CycleThe general temperature trends in Greenland during the current Holocene interglacial are shown in Fig 5

"The present interglacial is about 2oC colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. ... Clearly Central Greenland temperature changes are not identical to global temperature changes. However, they do tend to reflect global temperature changes with a decadal-scale delay (Box et al. 2009), with the notable exception of the Antarctic region and adjoining parts of the Southern Hemisphere, which is more or less in opposite phase (Chylek et al. 2010) for variations shorter than ice-age cycles (Alley 2003). This is the background for the very approximate global temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel. Please also note that the temperature record ends in 1854 AD, and for that reason is not showing the post Little Ice Age temperature increase. In the younger part of the GISP2 temperature reconstruction the time resolution is around 10 years. Any comparison with measured temperatures should therefore be made done using averages over periods of similar lengths. During especially the last 4000 years the Greenland record is dominated by a trend towards gradually lower temperatures, presumably indicating the early stages of the coming ice age (Fig.3). In addition to this overall temperature decline, the development has also been characterized by a number of temperature peaks, with about 950-1000 year intervals. It may even be speculated if the present warm period fits into this overall scheme of natural variations? "

I would assert here that the current warm period does indeed reflect a peak in the natural quasi-millennial temperature variation seen in Fig 5, and that temperature and climate trends from AD 2000 - 3000 are likely to more or less repeat the trends from AD 1000 - 2000. I would argue that knowing more precisely the timing of the peak in the current quasi-millennial solar cycle is the key to forecasting climate trends over the next several decades and the next several hundred years.

The long term persistence through time of this millennial quasi-periodicity seen in the Holocene in Fig 5 is show by, for example, by Kern 2012. Here spectral analysis of Miocene (about 10.5 million year old) lake proxies shows the persistence of the 1000 +/- year periodicity in solar activity.

A comparison of the Lomb–Scargle periodogram of the Holocene sunspot activity with time-converted periodograms of the Miocene proxy data. The overall similarity of the patterns is striking. Moreover, the appearance of the non-solar ~ 1500-yr-cycle in the Miocene data sets is obvious. GR: gray line, MS: dashed line, ostracodes: black line.The solar/astronomical basis of this persistent millennial temperature and climate cycle is discussed in detail and illustrated in several of Scafettas publications e.g. Fig 12 at: http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1

Fig7.

Figure 12 shows in red two filtered solar proxy models (Be10 and C14) and a temperature model (HSG) (taken from Bond et al., 2001) and in black the 980-year beat harmonic produced by the three-frequency astronomical model. As the figure shows, the model well captures the millennial solar/climate cycle. The complex patterns seen in the solar data are produced by interference among the constituent solar/tidal harmonics.

I would simply note here of the remarkable coincidence between the 970 year periodicity observed in the Holocene sunspot numbers in Fig 6a from Solanki et al. (2004) and the Miocene Lake series of Kern (Fig.6B ) and Scafetta's 980 year periodicity derived from orbital calculations - Fig 7 and also the 950 - 1000 year +/- periodicity in Holocene temperatures noted by Humlum and seen in Fig 5 above.

The IPCC, Met Office and the CAGW "team" also realized, correctly, that in order to predict the future they needed a good record of past temperatures - certainly over at least the last 2000 years or so and as much further back as proxy data would allow. Also in order to scare the public, drive policy and keep the grants coming it was necessary to show that current warm temperatures were out of the range of previous measurements. First they had to do away with Lamb's (and the real world's) Medieval Warming Period which appeared in the first IPCC report- Fig8

Fig 8 (Lamb AR1)

In 1998 and 1999, Mann produced the infamous "Hockey Stick" that is so beloved and exploited by Al Gore. The establishment modelling community, most politicians and the ecoleft MSM implicitly or explicitly still appear conceptually locked into the original Mannian graph, although he himself has moved on to a limited extent. A large amount of extremely valuable work has been done in gathering proxy temperature data in the last 15 years. Links to some of the most relevant papers are provided at:http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html

A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that, at this time, the most useful reconstruction for identifying N H temperature trends in the latest important millennial cycle may be that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5) Fig 9 here: http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

Fig 9

The shape of the curve of Fig 9 ( Fig 5 Christiansen) ) from 1000 - the present should replace the Mann-IPCC Al Gore hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future.

Note the close relationship seen here in panels 3C and 3D (Steinhilber) between the periods of low solar activity and low solar magnetic field strength as evidenced by the high cosmic ray intensity peaks and the various temperature minima of the Little Ice Age. Panel D also suggests that the current temperature peak is related to a Grand Maximum in solar activity in the late 20th century. This is demonstrated also by the Dye 3 ice core 10 Be record - Fig 11 - which shows the 20th century with the lowest 10Be flux (highest solar activity ) in the last 600 years.

"Cosmogenic isotope data reveal that this constitutes a grand maximum of solar

activity which began in 1920, using the definition that such grand maxima are when
25-year averages of the heliospheric modulation potential exceeds 600 MV.
Extrapolating the linear declines seen in all three parameters since 1985, yields
predictions that the grand maximum will end in the years 2013, 2014, or 2027 usingVSW, FS, or B respectively".

My own view ,based on the Ap index Fig 13 and Oulu neutron count - Fig 14 is that the solar activity maximum peaked in about 1991.with the sharp decline beginning about 2005 - 6.

NOTE!! The connection between solar "activity" and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar "activity" encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are: a) the changing GCR flux - via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)

The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.

Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.

Figure 15 shows warming from about 1910-1945, cooling from then to about 1976, warming to about 2003-2005, and cooling since then. Total warming during the 20th century was about 0.8 degrees C.
The quasi-periodic orbital and solar drivers produce emergent patterns and trends in the regional climate and weather patterns via the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems.
For a complete discussion and review of the periodicities relating the PDO to the other oceanic cycles, temperatures and regional climate patterns see:http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/aleo-easterbrook_ch5Relationship-multidecadal-global-temps-to-oceanic-oscillations.pdf

The Aleo-Easterbrook approach is a good way to modulate the millennial periodicity in order to make useful decadal predictions. They conclude:"If the
same climatic patterns, cyclic warming and cooling, that occurred over the past
500 years continue, we can expect several decades of moderate to severe
global cooling."

Note that this prediction would be in addition to cooling from the underlying millennial trend now entering its cooling phase.

There has now been no net warming for 16 years and the earth entered a cooling trend in about 2003 (Fig 17), which will likely last for another 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that.

Fig 17

3. Cooling Forecasts - Update and Observations.3.1 The forecasts.

During the last few years I have laid out an analysis of the basic climate data and of the methods used in climate prediction. From these I have developed a simple, rational and transparent forecast of the possible timing and extent of possible future cooling by considering the recent temperature peak as a nearly synchronous peak in both the 60- and 1000-year cycles and by using the neutron count and AP Index as supporting evidence of a coming cooling trend.

10/9/13 Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5 and the Coming Cooling.

The original cooling forecast was based on the correlation of solar cycles 2, 3, and 4 with solar cycles
21, 22 and 23 and the negative phase of the PDO. It suggested a possible Dalton type minimum and outlined the possible consequences:

"A general earth cooling is thus more likely as was the case from 1940 to 1970 when similar conditions prevailed. Concurrent changes in the Arctic Oscillation suggest a pattern of meridional atmospheric flow will be more common than the more latitudinal flows of warmer periods.Policymakers may wish to note the following possible effects on earth’s climate for the next 20 – 30 years. A cooler world with lower SSTs usually means a dryer world. Thus droughts will be more likely in for example east Africa with possible monsoon failures in India. In California the PDO will mean less rainfall with more forest fires in the south. However in the Cascades and Northern Sierras snowpack could increase since more of the rain could occur as snow. Northern Hemisphere growing seasons will be shorter with occasional early and late frosts and drought in the US corn belt and in Asia repeats of the harsh Mongolian and Chinese winters of 2009 – 10 . In Europe cold snowy winters and cool cloudy summers will be more frequent .There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps. In the USA hurricanes may strike the east coast with greater frequency in summer and storm related blizzards more common in winter. "

The 2012 update said :

"Two more years of Termperature, Ocean Current patterns, and Solar, and "weather" data have considerably confirmed and strengthened the original forecast.

In brief - NOAA - HCN - SSTs show that warming peaked in 2003 and there has now been no net warming since 1997 - 15 years with no net warming and CO2 up 8.2%. Since 2003 the global temperature trend is slightly negative. The PDO remains in its negative phase while the solar magnetic field strength continues an inexorable decline ,which is looking more and more likely to be a precursor of a Maunder type minimum. Sunspot data and the relatively high GCR count for this stage in solar cycle 24 confirm the secular change in solar activity relative to the previous century. Meanwhile the weather patterns - particularly in the US and Europe - have been as forecast in the earlier post."
After the publication of the AR5 WG1 draft I posted both a global and NH forecast on 10/9/13 based on using the both millennial and 60 year periodicities :

"In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13 I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.

Here are the conclusions of those posts.

1/22/13 NH Forecast

1) The millennial peak is sharp - perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming - and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two - 2014/16 - with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 9) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-.

3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 - 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees.

4) The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 - 2016 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.

4/02/13Global Forecast

1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17 2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22 3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024 4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15 5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 - 0.5 6 General Conclusion - by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed, 7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of another little ice age. 8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields . 9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the MaunderMinimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent - with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario."

3.2 2014 Updates and Observations..

3.2.1 Updates

a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.b) Global Forecast - item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.c) Global Forecast - item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.

3.2.2. Observations.a) Solar Cycle 24 peak.

During the last year, Solar cycle 24 developed a second and higher Sunspot peak in February 2014 and activity has declined sharply since then. This decline should be reflected in a rapid increase in the Neutron Count in another 4 or 5 months, and the possible beginning of a more pronounced cooling phase. The sharp decline in solar activity since February may also lead to the non-appearance of the much anticipated El Nino.

b) The Polar Vortex Excursions.I will quote again from the 2010 forecast:

"There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA. At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps"

This forecast was spectacularly confirmed by the early 2014 excursions of the Polar Vortex into the United States. Indeed, as I write this in Houston on July 29, 2014 another unusually early Canadian front has just gone through Houston with heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is a harbinger of weather patterns which will become more frequent on a cooling planet. As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, the snow cover finally never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop, as suggested by Steve Goddard:

4. Conclusions and Suggestions for Forecasting
Global temperature trends, solar activity and the climate and weather patterns since the original 2010 forecast have simply strengthened confidence in the forecast of both imminent decadal and long-term centennial cooling as outlined above.

The chief uncertainties relate to the exact timing of the current millennial solar activity peak and to the regionally variable lag time between the solar activity peak and its appearance as a peak in land temperatures and global SSTs. A +/- 12 year lag between the neutron count and the SST data has been used here following Fig3 in Usoskin et al:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560...19U

Other investigators have suggested lags between 12 and 20 years. We will see.

How confident should one be in the predictions in this post? The pattern and quasi-periodicity method doesn't lend itself easily to statistical measures. However, statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and, in relation to an ensemble of IPCC climate models, are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in, as some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure (say 65/35) for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that they will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case, this is a Bayesian type forecast in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 - 0.20 drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20, I would need to re-evaluate.

As to the future, the object of forecasting is to provide practical guidance for policy makers. The rate, amplitude and timing of climate change varies substantially from region to region so that, after accounting for the long term quasi-millennial periodicity, I would then estimate the modulation of this trend by providing multi-decadal climate forecasts for specific regions. This would be accomplished with particular reference to the phase relationships of the major oceanic and atmospheric systems PDO AMO, NAO, ENSO etc, a la Aleo and Easterbrook linked to in section 2.4 above. The earth has been subdivided into tectonic plates. It would be useful to have, as a guide to adaptation to climate change, multi-decadal regional forecasts for the following suggested climate plates, which are in reality closely linked to global geography.

1 North America and Western Europe.2 Russia3 China4 India and SE Asia5 Australasia and Indonesia 6 South America7 N Africa8 Sub Saharan Africa9 The Arctic10 The Antarctic11 The intra tropical Pacific Ocean. Detailed analysis of the energy exchanges and processes at the ocean /atmosphere interface in this area is especially vital because its energy budget provides the key to the earth's thermostat.